get_proxy_request_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, but description discloses critical behavioral information: the output contains live credentials and must be treated as secret, not echoed to user. This adds value beyond schema. Could mention idempotency, but the security warning is essential.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Five sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: main action, usage guidance, security warning, parameter sources. No redundancy, front-loaded with key information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, but the description provides a reasonable idea of the return structure (ip, port, username, password). It specifies it's for one proxy-request. Could mention if multiple endpoints are returned, but overall sufficient given tool complexity and sibling context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context by stating the provenance of each parameter (id from list_proxies, request_id from list_proxy_requests), which aids correct usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it lists live proxy endpoints and credentials for a specific GB Residential bucket proxy-request. Distinguishes from sibling tool get_proxy_list for ISP fixed-IP plans.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly describes when to use (to fetch endpoints for a specific country/rotation group) and when not to use (ISP fixed-IP plans use get_proxy_list). Also tells where to obtain the required parameters (id from list_proxies, request_id from list_proxy_requests).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.